New SI released, changes to licencing upcoming.

Dr Strange · 18-09-2015 2:42pm

Melodeon wrote: »

Haven't lads had to butcher their 6 (and more) round .22 revolvers to only hold 5 for a good while now anyway?

That's true, I saw some nice Webley's .22 changed to 5 rounds.

Sparks · 18-09-2015 2:42pm

Melodeon wrote: »

Haven't lads had to butcher their 6 (and more) round .22 revolvers to only hold 5 for a good while now anyway?

Yes, but some were still having issues because of the modified -vs- came-from-the-factory thing.

Dr Strange wrote: »

Ah crap, just when I planned to start .22 pistol shooting (after using .22 rifles for the last 10 years)

You're still fine, nothing's changed for that other than that it just got a bit easier.

gunhappy_ie · 18-09-2015 2:42pm

turismo2142 wrote: »

You're dead right.

Clarifies one thing, messes another

(iii) firearms which are designed for use with 0.22 inch long rifle
rim fire percussion ammunition and use magazines that have
been manufactured or modified prior to use so as to
accommodate no more than five rounds of ammunition”.

The key word there would be "modified" that could cover revolvers but since it refers only to "magazines" and not cylinders you could get a snaggy cop..... !

Dr Strange · 18-09-2015 2:43pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

You can licence a .22lr semi auto pistol if the mag can only hold 5 rounds.

Looking for revolver but if 5 rounds are still OK than it doesn't change much as the 6 chambered revolvers had to be modified to only hold 5 rounds anyway.

Witcher · 18-09-2015 2:43pm

Right so .22 pistols with 5 round mags are now restricted correct?

Sparks · 18-09-2015 2:43pm

turismo2142 wrote: »

You're dead right.

Clarifies one thing, messes another

For legislation, that's better than average

BattleCorp · 18-09-2015 2:44pm

Strider wrote: »

Right so .22 pistols with 5 round mags are now restricted correct?

No, not at all.

Sparks · 18-09-2015 2:44pm

Strider wrote: »

Right so .22 pistols with 5 round mags are now restricted correct?

Incorrect, they're unrestricted.

Sparks · 18-09-2015 2:45pm

nastros wrote: »

So is reloading possibly on the cards than?

Not even mentioned. Different act. Its status remains unchanged - possibly on the cards, needs a rework of the explosives act.

Witcher · 18-09-2015 2:45pm

Ok, I just saw they had substituted a paragraph in the Restricted SI and guessed the worst. I'm on a phone and didn't want to go and check what they had changed.

It wasn't me! · 18-09-2015 2:46pm

Strider wrote: »

Right so .22 pistols with 5 round mags are now restricted correct?

No, exactly the opposite. Their categorisation as unrestricted has been clarified and underlined, along with the removal of the completely nonsensical requirement that they be "designed for" use in Olympic competition. It bases their requirement to remain unrestricted solely on mechanical, identifiable characteristics, being mag capacity.

Grizzly 45 · 18-09-2015 2:50pm

Sparks wrote: »

Not even mentioned. Different act. Its status remains unchanged - possibly on the cards, needs a rework of the explosives act.

A political can for kicking if there ever was one.FG promised that one when they got into power X years ago.

Sparks · 18-09-2015 2:52pm

Like I've been saying for a few months Grizz, this is one can we want firmly booted, because a good solid kick to it is the best possible outcome for us.

Also, the restart of the FCP is the best bit of news today. No more shouting, back in the process, a far better place to be in.

Be interesting to see how the NARGC responds to this given their past statements...

gunhappy_ie · 18-09-2015 2:52pm

Sparks wrote: »

You're still fine, nothing's changed for that other than that it just got a bit easier.

Easier is the wrong word. Youll still have the same scrutiny but they will not refuse you a licence because of its magazine has been modified to suit the legislation.

Witcher · 18-09-2015 2:54pm

Sparks wrote: »

Be interesting to see how the NARGC responds to this given their past statements...

They'll be out burning bridges within the hour.

They should be bitch slapped at this stage.

turismo2142 · 18-09-2015 2:54pm

The SI is designed to save the State litigation costs and nothing else. Everything else is still up in the air.

Sparks · 18-09-2015 2:57pm

gunhappy_ie wrote: »

Easier is the wrong word. Youll still have the same scrutiny but they will not refuse you a licence because of its magazine has been modified to suit the legislation.

No, easier is the right word because now you don't have the worry about being refused over a gray area, as has happened to several people of late with GSG-type pistols. That's no longer a concern, so it's slightly easier. They're not giving them out with cornflakes, but it's now the process will follow the actual written rules.

Hopefully

BattleCorp · 18-09-2015 2:58pm

This SI only deals with short firearms. Where's the legislation that puts applying for semi auto centrefire rifles on hold until there's an authority to deal with that?

Sparks · 18-09-2015 2:59pm

Strider wrote: »

They'll be out burning bridges within the hour.

To be entirely honest, given the experiences of the last few years, if they don't take a seat at the table this time, I think they can't expect the rest of us to stand with them outside the tent getting pissed on.

turismo2142 · 18-09-2015 2:59pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

This SI only deals with short firearms. Where's the legislation that puts applying for semi auto centrefire rifles on hold until there's an authority to deal with that?

There is none.

The rest is on a "to do" list. Although there is a statement that says if you get one between now and then it can be revoked by whatever primary legislation they are considering.

Sparks · 18-09-2015 3:00pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

This SI only deals with short firearms. Where's the legislation that puts applying for semi auto centrefire rifles on hold until there's an authority to deal with that?

Not yet released. That'll have to be... ah. Oh crap. An actual Act.
/headdesk

Didn't think of that.

/looks for place to go hide for a year

edit: They still have a template from 2009 to use, but yeah, they'll have to pass an Act and that means the whole circus, right before an election. ****e.

Man. Finian McGrath debating with Michael Healy-Rae across the floor of the Dail about our stuff.

Can we legalise recreational narcotics first? Please? They don't make tequila strong enough to watch that kind of ****e...

BattleCorp · 18-09-2015 3:08pm

Sparks wrote: »

Not yet released. That'll have to be... ah. Oh crap. An actual Act.
/headdesk

Didn't think of that.

/looks for place to go hide for a year

edit: They still have a template from 2009 to use, but yeah, they'll have to pass an Act and that means the whole circus, right before an election. ****e.

Man. Finian McGrath debating with Michael Healy-Rae across the floor of the Dail about our stuff.

Can we legalise recreational narcotics first? Please? They don't make tequila strong enough to watch that kind of ****e...

Like was mentioned earlier, it's probably on a to-do list. Hopefully it won't be touched before the election. The government would hardly want to p1ss off any more people coming up to the election.

Sparks · 18-09-2015 3:09pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

Like was mentioned earlier, it's probably on a to-do list. Hopefully it won't be touched before the election. The government would hardly want to p1ss off any more people coming up to the election.

Your lips to the minister's ears...

edit: Actually, that came out way more dodgy-sounding than intended, sorry!

BattleCorp · 18-09-2015 3:10pm

Sparks wrote: »

Your lips to the minister's ears...

edit: Actually, that came out way more dodgy-sounding than intended, sorry!

Hey, if I thought it would help. :pac:

Sparks · 18-09-2015 3:12pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

Hey, if I thought it would help. :pac:

Love how you think it was you I was apologising to

gunhappy_ie · 18-09-2015 3:12pm

Just wondering ....... how much money are the state saving by bringing in a crowd of civilians to arbitrate instead of going to the courts ?

Having only quickly read through this verall Im happy with the results achieved. If this all goes ahead as proposed we could have a modern licencing system that allows for the growth of the sport (except centerfire pistols)

yubabill1 · 18-09-2015 3:17pm

gunhappy_ie wrote: »

Just wondering ....... how much money are the state saving by bringing in a crowd of civilians to arbitrate instead of going to the courts ?

Having only quickly read through this verall Im happy with the results achieved. If this all goes ahead as proposed we could have a modern licencing system that allows for the growth of the sport (except centerfire pistols)

S/A C/F rifles to be capped = effective ban.

Sparks · 18-09-2015 3:17pm

gunhappy_ie wrote: »

Just wondering ....... how much money are the state saving by bringing in a crowd of civilians to arbitrate instead of going to the courts ?

Quite a lot, but so are we. We never had a 100% success rate there, don't forget, not to mention the unrecoverable portion of your costs as laid out in your Section 68 letter. This is a positive development, at least as laid out so far; and it doesn't take away the courts route even if you do appeal this way. It just adds another step before you have to get on the phone to a solicitor.

Having only quickly read through this verall Im happy with the results achieved. If this all goes ahead as proposed we could have a modern licencing system that allows for the growth of the sport (except centerfire pistols)

And centerfire rifles.
But yes, there does appear to be a lot of positive stuff in there. Day one only, and all the normal caveats apply, but... yeah, that was a lot more positive than it might have been.

Grizzly 45 · 18-09-2015 3:22pm

yubabill1 wrote: »

S/A C/F rifles to be capped = effective ban.

Actually,its an already outdated act before the ink is even on the paper for the proposed act and Dail debate.;):D.Technology has already moved on again to make even this reduntant.

gunhappy_ie · 18-09-2015 3:22pm

yubabill1 wrote: »

S/A C/F rifles to be capped = effective ban.

Thats jumping the gun :P

Shooting Forum - Firearms licencing information

New SI released, changes to licencing upcoming.

Comments